Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly the pink batts program was introduced by the government to address climate change concerns. On that basis I want to address the Department of Climate Change report and that issue today. What we do know is that this program has been a cash cow for shonky operators. It has been directly linked to 93 house fires. It has led to around 1,000 family homes being left with electrified ceilings and roofs. It has allowed about 240,000 family homes to be fitted with unsafe or substandard insulation. Tragically, it has directly led to the deaths of four young people.

There were, on the last count, 21 warnings in relation to this program—21 separate warnings in relation to safety and other issues. We are all aware of the Minter Ellison report. I will not go through it again today; I do not think anyone in this chamber or indeed anyone in Australia does not know about the Minter Ellison report. But why is it that the golden-haired boy, the teacher’s pet—Senator Arbib—is not prepared to answer some very serious questions in relation to his involvement in this matter? Why did he refuse to answer the questions posed by Senator Birmingham today in relation to whether he had received any advice at all from the department to delay implementation of this program? There are two answers to that question. It is a very simple question. The answer is either yes or no. Did we get that response today? No, we most certainly did not. The second question was in relation to Senator Birmingham’s direct quote of the minister’s involvement in the program, which was basically getting it delivered on time.

As I said this afternoon, in my view both Minister Arbib and Minister Garrett are just pawns in this whole political game. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister was directly involved in ensuring that this program was implemented urgently and without taking due regard of what I have absolutely no doubt were appropriate warnings about the potential dangers in relation to this program. This was a complete and utter shambles, as Senator Mason said. It beggars belief that you could have a report from Minter Ellison, and get a series of warnings, and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, and Minister Arbib, who were responsible for the implementation of the program, knew nothing about it.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It beggars belief they’re ministers!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right; it does beggar belief they are ministers. This does not stack up. This was a program that was pushed forward for cheap political purposes, and Minister Arbib’s failure to answer a simple question, in my view, and in the view of those on this side of the chamber—and, I suspect, the Australian community—leads to one conclusion and one conclusion only: he did receive that advice from the department. And, given the role the Prime Minister had given him to deliver this program quickly, that advice was not taken. That is a fundamental breach of the responsibilities of both of those ministers. This is a quote from the Prime Minister:

Ministerial accountability means exactly that—that they should be responsible to the Parliament for their actions, to be responsible for the operation of their department as well. Of course there becomes a difficult and grey area—there might be a minor matter of administration within a department over which the minister has no direct oversight or no direct responsibility. But ministerial accountability means that the executive is accountable to the Parliament for the administration of the department of state. And that is a core principle of Westminster and a core principle, I believe, of restoring Westminster.

The code of ministerial conduct states:

Ministers must accept accountability for the exercise of the powers and functions of their office …

and—

must accept the full implications of the principle of ministerial responsibility.

Neither Minister Arbib or Minister Garrett has accepted that— (Time expired)

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier, Senator Bushby sought leave to continue his remarks on this document. We have now had a further speaker on it. Senator Bushby, I was wondering whether you still wished to seek leave?

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I still wish to seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.